Last year a traffic cop pulled me over while driving home and handed me a speeding ticket. Although nervous and somewhat startled since it was my first time getting caught, I ended up walking out of traffic court a few months later without having to pay a fine or adding a single point to my record. Surprisingly, it was all thanks to my Android-powered smart phone and a little creativity.

My First Speeding Ticket

As a brand new Motorola Droid owner, I was in the rush of trying just about every app that appeared in the Android Marketplace. One that particularly stood out and had me excited was My Tracks by Google. This free app records and visualizes your GPS data on a map, which is something I always wanted to try. I began using app while jogging, biking to class, and even when driving.

I fortunately happened to have Google Tracks running when an officer cited me for speeding while I was heading back home from a friend’s place. The speed limit in the area was a mere 25 miles per hour and the cop’s radar gun shockingly clocked me driving over 40 miles per hour. In a panicked mental state, I simply handed over my driver’s license, insurance, and registration information without asking any questions. I was confident that I was within the posted speed limit in the back of my mind, but I just apologized and went my way instead of speaking up.

Once I parked my car in the apartment lot, I immediately realized that I had Google Tracks running as a background process as I reached to grab my phone from the dashboard mount. As I walked in, I pulled up my history for the previous session which displays information such as distance, average speed, average moving speed, and max speed. It even stores maximum and minimum elevation levels for those that need it. More importantly, I found that my phone only recorded a top speed of just 26 miles per hour, significantly lower than the cited speed. I now knew I was not speeding.

Traffic Court or Traffic School

After heading to the Yolo County (California) Traffic Court website and doing some research I found that I had two options: traffic court or a fine with traffic school. Most friends and family suggested paying the fines and avoiding traffic court since it is usually impossible to win. I unfortunately did not have the cash to spare or time for traffic school with a busy college schedule. I soon decided to take my chances in traffic court, which would take place over six months down the road.

I decided to write down an account of the entire situation just a few days later and even exported the data from my phone to Google Docs so I would not lose or forget any important details. I even came across an ongoing Sonoma County Superior Court case regarding the accuracy of GPS devices and radar guns. I saved a few articles to back my claim that my account of the situation was debatable with the evidence from my smart phone.

Time For Traffic Court

Once I made my way into the court room after going through metal detectors, I had to sign a document to indicate whether I plea guilty or not guilty. I choose the latter and got seated. The judge called a few people to the stand before it was my turn. Most of them were wearing rugged clothing, screamed out loud a several times, uttered inappropriate language, and were extremely enraged. Each case resulted in a guilty verdict, which had me even more terrified.

I eventually took the stand nervously. The plaintiff presented information from city plans noting that my speed limit was inappropriate for the area. When it was my turn to make a statement, I remained calm and spoke respectfully. I was also glad that I wore business casual clothing, which always plays an important role in situations such as this one.

My Geeky Evidence

Taking hints from a lawyer that spoke on behalf of a defendant shortly before me, I decided to ask the officer a few questions about the day he cited me. It turned out that the officer did not recall the last time he attended radar gun training, when the device was last calibrated, or the unit’s model number. I then presented my time stamped GPS data with details about my average moving speed and maximum speed during my short drive home. Both numbers were well within the posted speed limits.

I also made it clear to the judge that I had no other prior driving records or violations. After a lengthy pause, the judge asked how I obtained the GPS tracking information. I provided a detailed explanation about my new awesome smart phone, the application in use, and how I exported the data. After questioning whether the data was reliable, I mentioned the in progress Sonoma County Superior Court trial regarding the same matter about the credibility of both technologies.

The Big Verdict

The judge took a moment and declared that I was not guilty, but he had an unusual statement that followed. To avoid any misinterpretations about his ruling, he chose to clarify his decision by citing the lack of evidence on the officer’s part. He mentioned that he was not familiar enough with GPS technology to make a decision based on my evidence, but I can’t help but imagine that it was an important factor.

What You Should Know

Before anyone goes out to try their luck with my story, I should make a few things clear. I have no legal experience what so ever. I also would like to also note that the purpose of this article is to focus on smart phone technology and issues with radar guns. The officer in question was doing his job and did not do anything wrong. I find that internet culture often likes to demonize misbehaving cops, which I hate hearing about. It is important to respect the men and women who put their lives on the line to keep our streets safe every day. With that being said, I hope that this article will be helpful to anyone who was wrongly accused due to inaccurate information from radar guns, which are rather complicated to operate compared to consumer friendly smart phones.

Great job, and congratulations! You’re probably right in suspecting the GPS played a factor. The judge probably *couldn’t* accept it at face value with the related case in question still pending, but the fact that you calmly, politely, and effectively demonstrated that you were driving the speed limit *and* that you were a mature, intelligent driver enough to *track* it. You were likely a refreshing break from the usual poorly-dressed, disrespectful punks that show up to fight tickets because they have nothing better to do, so that helped too.

I’ve never “just paid” on a ticket; I’ve always shown up in court (I’ve only had to do this twice, thankfully) — once it was reduced to a $50 fine & probation (even with my “not guilty” plea) w/no points, and the other was dismissed the day before my trial because, similarly to your case, the cops had no real evidence and either misfiled what they had or didn’t bother filing anything.

This goes to show that if you know you did nothing wrong, fight! Also, you mentioned regretting not speaking up to the cop, but you did exactly the right thing by just producing documentation, being polite and non-confrontational, and not trying to argue or dispute the ticket with the officer. Down that road lies madness (and you don’t want the cop to really remember you for anything anyway, so on the court date he’s got no notes or records of his own to refresh his memory since you were so well-behaved). Again, congrats on beating this!

Your phone had absolutely nothing to do with the judges verdict. Most departments require that radar be calibrated everyday before starting a shift. Some do it more often. The officer should be prepared to present to the judge, as evidence, the calibration log of the radar gun and information on when the calibration device (tuning forks) was/were last calibrated. If you can show reasonable doubt that the officers equipment was not working properly, then the judge cannot find a verdict of guilty. Officers and attorneys are both aware of this. Thats why every police officer in the country calibrates his equipment daily and records that information into a log. This story strikes me as totally false.

Yup, you are correct that departments require calibrating radar guns before a shift. Unfortunately, the traffic cop in question did not have written log of those details when he took the stand. I inadvertently asked about calibration and training since a lawyer asked another officer shortly before it was my turn. Based on what you just said, it seems more likely that the judge made his decision on the lack of information rather than GPS. However with how the case turned out, I truly felt that my smart phone evidence also played a vital role.

Was your phone calibrated/validated for accuracy? Even if it was, the ease of fiddling even date-stamped data is trivial. The lesson here is not that the phone data was important, it was your demeanour during the appearance and your reasonable attitude and presentation of evidence. The cop could have measured you in an over-taking spurt at 40 mph even though your average was 26 mph. In several jurisdictions, it is now illegal to interact with a cell phone while driving. While you did not do so (referring to the data after the incident), it’s a possible risk to bring up cell phone information in a car (especially when driving alone). But, kudos to you and a cool story. It’s usually worth challenging such violations in court. Most people don’t and pay a premium.

The lessons here are that all factors have a chance to contribute when presented well. Jim, how can you reliably contend that the phone data had zero tondo with the verdict? It was evidence. Results in court are not only how one presents evidence but what the said evidence consists of.

The cop probably didn’t think you had a chance just like many of those who went before you before the judge. That’s probably why he didn’t prepare anything other than his so called “police” honesty. He’s probably been to court many times to know that he didn’t need to be prepared. Lazy copy indeed.

I have fought all of my tickets and the more evidence you have in your favor the better. There must be daily and yearly calibration logs. The gun must be inspected by an FCC licensed entity and the police department must hold an FCC license for using the radar equipment. They have standard training, laser radar training, as well as refresher training.

You don’t know if the phone data had anything to do with the judges verdict of not. The judge could have said it had nothing to do with it, but the only person who truly knows is the judge. He/She could have been persuaded slightly because of the cell phone data, but of course the judge would not admit that. You call the story fake, but you strike me as someone who just thinks they know everything. Stop hating on the author and do something positive.

RE: “every police officer in the country calibrates his equipment daily and records that information into a log”, that’s actually not correct. I had a similar issue in Texas where I was pulled over for speeding and was defiantly not (cruise control is an amazing thing). However when I went to fight it and asked for calibration records I was told, by the judge, that there are no laws on the books for radar calibration in Texas. Thankfully, since I still had a California license, they had no way of putting the “offense” on my record since those state systems aren’t tied together, but it was still annoying to pay the fine.

Kind of a different matter: Hall vs State discusses the fact that in this case, no evidence or previous judgement was referred to that showed that the technology used was even appropriate for measuring speed. In Colin’s case, it could be very likely that they referred to the appropriate evidence or laws upholding RADAR (in his case, which is also a much older and proven technology). What he’s referring to is the calibration or lack thereof. If there is no law that there must be calibration logs (and there likely isn’t; it could be a department policy, though), then they wouldn’t have to produce them. As long as they could show that the technology has been proven valid, and that the radar gun was functionally appropriate, then the case sticks. Depending on how little doubt the defense presents, this could be as little as a yearly certification of the device.

While Colin may have lost the case, it did not do him damage other than a fine, so his lack of full defense (aka, an attorney, more research, etc) was not inappropriate.

What I was saying is that *your case* you said that you still ended up paying the fine when you more than likely shouldn’t have. You could have just as easily gotten the ticket dismissed before it even went to court.

In his case the information he lucked upon while observing the lawyer in action is what really saved him. If I had never been to court for a speeding ticket I would probably have thought that my phone saved me too. What really saved him is being observant.

He could have easily submitted a Writ of Discovery to determine the info he needed to defend himself in court even without the GPS data and that doesn’t require a lawyer at all. You just need to know what to ask for and they have to supply the info you request or respond with a reason why they can’t which can also be used in your defense.

RADAR in and of itself is not foolproof so paying a fine is more than a bit ridiculous because in some states its more than just the fine that catches you in the end. You also have to think about what it does to your insurance and in some cases it can prevent you from gaining employment.

Also always remember judges do not always know the law, or even if the technology being used by police is valid and police officers do not always know when laws change. People always assume that those in authority know and thats not even any where near the truth.

Also, a Writ of Discovery is useful for learning what evidence may be used against you, but it is not necessary and sometimes is counterproductive in a traffic case because it warns the cop or prosecutor to be especially well prepared. After all, the same burden of evidence applies whether you request evidence prior to trial or not. Personally, I’ve had pretty good success by simply challenging the prosecution side to prove its evidence without any discovery ahead of time, because the typical defendant is a loud mouthed, short-wearing idiot who thinks that saying “but I was only driving five over” is a defense. When a judge asks me why I didn’t ask for the evidence I am challenging ahead of time, I simply point out that it’s the prosecution’s burden to prove their case and also a basic tenet of law practice to be prepared to produce evidence that supports the accusation. It’s not my job to make sure the prosecutor knows to bring their evidence to court with them.

Most states have a requirement that “scientific instruments or measuring devices” whose results are used as evidence to undergo state testing at certain intervals in order to be admissible in court. This interval is typically not more than a year though it varies from state to state. This includes not just RADAR or LIDAR antennas (which, by the way, have to each be tested for calibration separately in systems with multiple antennas like typical bi-directional and moving radar systems mounted to the car) but also the system which is used to test and/or calibrate the RADAR or LIDAR device. Some states require that verification take place in the state where the device is being used by a state facility, so technically a new-from-the-box speed measuring device can’t be used in these states without going through state lab tests first. Most departments don’t bother with this.

Clearing up a common mis-perception: The tuning fork used with RADAR does not actually calibrate the radar gun. The fork merely provides a vibration that reflects RADAR energy at a certain Doppler shift matching a certain speed. Most RADAR systems require two measurements, such as with a 15 mph and 35 mph tuning fork for example. However, if there is any damage or wear to the tuning forks it can change the frequency of the fork and cause an inaccurate shift. Tuning forks are matched to the system they are sold with, so for instance a tuning fork from one antenna should not be used to calibrate another antenna even if they are the same model. The manufacturer’s certification that the device works only applies to the system as sold. The reason a so-called “calibration log” is required in many departments is to provide a written record that the device was probably still in calibration (established, again, by the state test facility and not the officer) because it showed the right speed on the device’s readout when the beam hit a known frequency of doppler shift. The cop will almost always have this with them in court.

However, the real test of certified calibration, is the record of when the antennas were last sent to the lab for testing, and when the lab’s test rig was also tested. It’s interesting to see what happens when this evidence is asked for in trial, because a typical cop won’t think to bring a copy of either of these documents, or even know if and when his department sent the antenna out for testing. If the rules of court require testing of “scientific measurement devices,” and you as the defendant openly challenge the admissibility of the evidence, then the onus is on the cop to prove it meets the state’s standard.

Even if this paperwork is good to go, national standards for speed measurement training require the officer to be able to visually estimate the speed of a vehicle to establish probable cause (which requires initial training and then ongoing refresher training) prior to using a measurement device. NHTSA has a radar training standard which is obtainable with a simple FOIA request form and a small fee for the copy. For the same reason the police cannot wantonly take blood samples from members of the public to find out if they’re using drugs, a speed measurement device is a secondary means of taking evidence after the officer already has suspicion that the law is being broken. This probable cause is based on something called a tracking history, or basically, the officer’s assessment of the speed of the suspect vehicle and an evaluation of whether anything might interfere with the measurement. If the officer’s training does not meet state standards, or more commonly, the officer hasn’t received refresher training in the appropriate time frame from a certified instructor, the officer’s tracking history cannot be used to establish probable cause, no matter how much experience the officer has or how wonderful and calibrated the RADAR device is. Without probable cause, the officer has no foundation to use a scientific measuring device. A cop cannot legally leave the RADAR on and then just wait until a big number appears as a reason to throw on the lights and sirens – they have to suspect it was your car and estimate it is travelling at a certain speed (typically within 5 mph of actual speed), and then and only then can they measure your speed with a device. It’s harder to challenge, but asking the police about this process can occasionally result in the officer admitting they haven’t established probable cause prior to using the radar, or else they may claim to have done it in a way that makes it circumstantially questionable (like they claim to have estimated your speed in their rear view mirror while in freeway traffic when your car was just a quarter inch blob among dozens of others).

Now, the same “scientific measuring device” standards would necessarily apply to the smartphone. Since there isn’t any case history or court recognition on using a handheld GPS as a speed measuring device (as there is with RADAR, and, to a lesser degree, LIDAR), or any specific GPS-enabled device approved for speed measuring, or any testing lab to verify your phone is operating within the manufacturer’s specifications for accuracy, there is really no way you can use it as scientific evidence by court rules. A judge at best might see it as circumstantial evidence, much as he would an observation that there was heavy or two-way traffic in the area where your speed was measured, or if something else might cast doubt on other evidence in the case. Still, you’ll be surprised how much leeway a judge may give you as a member of the public if you conduct yourself professionally.

Finally someone got it right. Seven plus years on the force in two different states and I never calibrated a radar. I would check the calibration daily and record the antenna number along with both fork numbers. The calibration certification date was labeled on the antenna and recorded as well. Anyway good reply Ken.

If you have ever driven around Harris County you will know that the Sheriffs and DPS guys drive with their radar on all the time. More than likely giving themselves cancer in the process. it happens so often I could probably list the license plates of all the ones in my area that do.

The info about officer training to be able to guess a vehicles speed is correct. I also found that sometimes officers receive ‘refresher training’ and they may try to use this as evidence in court to support their probable cause. That doesn’t always mean their training is valid because they are supposed to receive it from another person that is certified and that has demonstrated a minimum number of hours using that skill. Sometimes they get refresher training on-the-job from co-workers because states are trying to save money and in the process they may be passed and given a certificate but that certificate may be invalid because there is a minimum amount of time that they have to spend in a classroom learning and being tested on those procedures. Not many people would know that either.

Also I found out that in some cases the roadway signs the officer may be using to say you are speeding may not even be the correct sign. I actually had to get in contact with someone at TXDOT to determine if a sign was supposed to be updated in an area near Kemah after construction work was done as there is a work order and a person in charge of each section of roadway when they are doing construction. Included with that work order was the order to change the signs. In my case the signs hadn’t been changed because of a glitch in their system. The actual construction in that area had been completed weeks before I even drove through the area. So the maximum safe speed was invalid. I just happened to noticed that the speed went from 50 to 35 and then to nothing because the sign was missing from one of the posts. I was told that every month the officers in that area are supposed to meet at a TXDOT Construction meeting where they tell them where those speed changes are going to take place. If the officers in that area didn’t attend how could they then continue to enforce the speed limit law. Thats when you know you really have them. How about that for evidence. Being able to prove that an officer doesn’t even know the posted speed limit was incorrect.

In Google Tracks, click the menu button then select “tracks.” There should be a list of all the GPS recordings. You can hold and select one to export them individually or export them all at once! It’s rather easy!

I guess things are different down here in San Diego County – the last time I tried to go to traffic court to argue my case against a ticket (about 2 years ago)_, I was told I had to pay the fine in full in order to set a court date, and if found not guilty they would refund my money. Knowing they had no incentive to rule non-guilty and refund my fee (and also coming up with the fee money and being without it for x months – a tax free loan for them), I paid the fine and took the point. Since then I use cruise control to go 65 MPH and dare the cops to pull me over.

Unfortunately, they get around that by labeling it as an “infraction” rather than a misdemeanor. This is how they get around providing you with a court appointed attorney and depriving you of due process. Its shameful and unconstitutional, and at this point, just a fund raising scheme.

If you were told that you had to pay the fine, you were misinformed. In California (and in other states where I’ve been ticketed), what you pay is bail – a deposit that ensures that you will show up in court. If you fail to show, your bail is forfeited.

Granted, it comes out the same from the pocketbook side of things.

Also, your assumption that they have “no incentive” to rule you not guilty suggests that you lack a basic understanding of the legal system. The judge rules based on the facts, not on incentives. The court doesn’t get your fine, it goes elsewhere. And if the system is truly crooked, it would never make sense to go to trial. But people sometimes do, and people often win (I’m one of them).

And why did you end up paying it? Did you actually have a defense, or are you simply pissed about getting caught? You did mutter about a “tax free loan” – do you prefer making it a gift?

“He mentioned that he was not familiar enough with GPS technology to make a decision based on my evidence, but I can’t help but imagine that it was an important factor.”

That is indeed your imagination, because that is not how the system works. If the judge doesn’t take the GPS data into consideration, then it doesn’t matter in your case. So your phone has nothing to do with the decision, sorry.

Actually, you are wrong. It does make a difference. The judge’s lack of familiarity with GPS tech could result in a mistrial if he would have made a decision against the defendant without additional consideration of the technology that was used in his argument. The judge likely realized that taking the time to argue a case which had a basis for defense on such a minor violation would be a waste of the court’s and his own time.

Actually, it did make a difference. The judge couldn’t make the decision based solely on the GPS evidence, *but* it placed the burden on the cop to produce evidence beyond simply his own sworn testimony to refute the GPS evidence. The judge didn’t have to rule based on the evidence because if the cop couldn’t refute the evidence, the evidence was to be presumed correct.

Or, to put it another way, once you present a plausible defense, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that defense wrong. The author did, the cop didn’t.

And even doing so, you don’t get a court “date” at first. You have to file a written document stating your case.And, from personal experience I can tell you, even being able to prove your case cold, the “judge”(who is not a real judge in traffic courts) will just lower the fine by half,and then give you ten days to come in to get a date for a trial. So, you have to come before a judge to get a date, and then come back another day for your trial. Especially at that point your cost for fighting the ticket outweigh the rewards.

Great article & you handled receiving your ticket the most correct way. There is no reason to make a fuss. Signing the ticket is not an admission of guilt. Court is where you “fight” it out.

I mean, the author would not have appealed the ruling, and so not gone to court, nor would he have done his research, nor been so confident in court, without the My Tracks app. He would have paid the fine and been guilty. So yes, this had almost everything to do with his phone.

What I think some people have pointed out and others have missed, is that the officer could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed an offense. I’ve fought many traffic tickets and this is always the case. If you can’t present evidence to the contrary of the officer’s statement, you are creating doubt. And with the lack of solid evidence from the officer, say, a calibration log, dash board video, etc, then you raise doubt and the state’s attorney argues that there isn’t doubt.
YMMV, but here in Illinois, its like a regular court case.

I can’t speak for Illinois, but I know here in Washington State the standard they use for deciding these cases is a “preponderance of the evidence” (i.e. is it more likely than not), not the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.

Interesting story, but your mass defense of police goes too far. Every category of people includes some who are lazy, some who are stupid, some who are dishonest, even some who are evil. Others, maybe even most, are careful and industrious, intelligent and good, but that doesn’t mean we can gloss over those who are not. You don’t have to be a criminal defense attorney, criminal court judge or internal affairs officer to know about the crap that gets pulled by police every day, you just have to scan the headlines. In fact, the officer who cited you DID do something wrong: either he failed to follow protocol in calibrating his radar, he errantly used the equipment or he willfully gave you a ticket you did not deserve.

It’s the calm composure and look that helps. I had a hearing where I presented my declining gasoline usage over time, the camera image along with some math to show that I am not a habitual speeder. I was indeed over the limit and the photo supports that. But in my efforts to reduce my gasoline usage I was using gravity and coasting down the hill. My math factored in the slope of the hill, the distance to the camera, mass of the car, speed at the top of the slope. All that combined did compute to the speed that I passed the camera. I then explained that they could differentiate between speeders and coasters by repositioning the camera car a few hundred feet forward. That way those who are still accelerating are speeding and coasters would be decelerating as they begin up hill again.

The judge thought that I was a little wierd but did appreciate the effort in pointing out the distinction. She did reduce the fine and there were no points involved.

I really went because I wanted to be on record stating that I am not a speeder. There the judge agreed.

Although nervous and somewhat startled since it was my first time getting caught…

So you do admit you have been speeding in the past and it sound’s like you were speeding that time, but somehow Google recorded the speed. Also it would be very easy to export that data and make a simple change to make it look like you weren’t speeding.

As a former law enforcement officer in the State of Florida, I can tell you that the GPS information did not really play a major part int he decision. You were however smart by listening up and calling the officer out. When I was on the road, I kept detailed records of every radar training school I went to along with a calibration log. If I did not calibrate my unit, and I stopped a car with it, I would immediately let them off with a verbal warning (mostly because the unit was calibrated the day before so I would be sure they were speeding but due to my laziness, they get a free pass). The key is, you proved the officer had no evidence. You also showed that he also does not take care of his equipment and may not even know how to use it properly since he can not recall the school he lasted attended. This means his unit could have been defective, or he could have had the system on the wrong setting causing it to look like you were going faster than you were. The Google tracks did throw out there that you had done your own homework and had come up with some form of proof that you were not speeding. If you did not have the GPS data, you most likely would have still gotten off due to his lack of evidence.

You weren’t found innocent, you were simply found “not guilty”. That doesn’t mean you didn’t do it; it means there’s no “proof” that you DID. Proof would have been proper documentation of the radar equipment’s calibration and the officer’s training to use it correctly. HAD THAT BEEN IN ORDER, my guess is that even with your GPS data you would have lost.

But the judge was a fool to acknowledge his lack of experience with GPS equipment, because in doing so I have to agree that any guilty verdict that either cited and rebuffed it or even said “I think radar detectors are better” would have been a problem. Seriously, the judge should have thanked you and then not commented on the GPS at all; he should have simply found you not guilty based on the officer doing bad work.

So the “Innocent until proven guilty” has always been a myth? Sahas wasn’t proven guilty, so should he be innocent? Of course I don’t know US law – so I’m just asking a question out of curiosity, not questioning the validity of what you say directly.

“Innocent until proven guilty” is only a legal technicality. I’m guilty of speeding almost every time I drive; I just don’t get caught! But in court, the onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt. They have to prove you did something; you don’t have to prove that you didn’t. The case is always over determining guilt, not proving innocence.

When I lived in Mass about 15-20 years ago, there used to be stories of how the Engineers at Raytheon (home of some of the most sophisticated Radar Development on the planet) would respond to being charged with traffic violations based on Radar Guns. They would baffle the cops and judge with the science, and get off. THere was also the “story” that one of them, had painted his vehicle with radar absorbing paint, not dissimilar to F117 aircraft.Truth or Fiction…

I think that is an urban legend. In any case, it would not have helped him much. The traffic RADAR will return a signal off the windshield, the front license plate, the headlights, the grill, etc. Besides, F-117 aircraft are stealthy not because of some bat fuss paint, but because of the unique angles on the plane causing a significant reflective capability.

Here is how to beat a speeding ticket or at least get it reduced. (Lots of good tips on here but not this one).

Be polite to the officer and acknowledge that he is doing his job! (very important even if they are being dicks to you)

Take note of the mile marker before and after the position that you were pulled over.

Contact the highway department from that area with a letter or email and request a report for the average median speed between those markers.

If you got a ticket for 70 in a 55 and the average median speed is 64, well I think you can see the difference.

Write a letter, pleading guilty to charges to the judge. Be polite. Explain that you understand that the officer was doing his job. Explain nicely, that the roads were clear, there was no traffic, pedestrian or vehicle, no danger to yourself or property, the average median speed and the speed you were traveling. Ask that they take this into consideration as you do not wish to have points on your license or record.

Generally and in all cases that I have done this (when applicable) I have only had to pay the $35 court fee. No points, no fines. If you are driving with your feet and recklessly endangering others, you get whatever you deserve. For most of us, this is not the case. Most of us travel the same routes every day or every week and know how to stay safe in the traffic flow (or lack of it). Sometimes, this requires going over the speed limit.

Also, 9 over folks. Most police officers will tell you that 9 over is acceptable unless you are in a school zone or work zone.

You said the officer in question was just doing his job and did nothing wrong. yet last time I looked falsifying charges is VERY wrong.
now that you have won, go back and file a class action suit seeking hugh punitive damages for everyone who has ever been subjected to THIS officer, and THIS radar gun.

You won because the cop did not have enough evidence to prove you were guilty. Most experienced officers know when they took their last training, know to pull up calibration records or have a paper that shows the guns information. Sorry to burst your bubble but your smart phone did not save you.

FYI, my friend’s father – a man I know well – once told him to fight a ticket EXACTLY the way you did… having nothing to do with GPS. It’s very common for lawyers to ask cops what radar gun they used, when it was last calibrated, when the last time was that they were trained, etc. If the officer can’t give dates for these things, it raises doubt.

As for your GPS data, that SHOULD be rock-hard evidence, and it’s pathetic that a judge can sit there and say, “I don’t understand it, so I won’t worry about it.” I guess it’s alright since he gave you not guilty, but do you even question for a second that he wouldn’t do the same? Sad.

Good Job. I tend to get a ticket about once every three years. – A bit of a tendency to speed, usually I pay up. On a few tickets though, I have fought in court. One judge remarked that fighting tickets was usually a losing proposition for the defendant as about 90% of the folks are found guilty.

So far I’m batting a thousand. I’ve fought three tickets, and won each time. (I’ve also taken traffic court twice and paid the fine a couple of times – when they had me dead to rights) Though of the three times I fought and won, only one was for speeding, the other two were for other infractions. (failure to obey sign – I demonstrated that I had obeyed the sign, and cited for crossing the solid white line, I cast enough doubt on the veracity of the officer’s claim that I won.)

Where I’m located (California), in watching the cases awaiting my turn, the police uniformly begin on monotone bored autopilot stating how they did the calibration tests at the beginning of their shift. – So attempts to invalidate their readings generally don’t go over well.

I’ve seen one gentlemen successfully contest his citation by demonstrating that he was driving within the customary and normal 85% observed speed rate of traffic.

Many other folks in the courtroom do seem to be on the lower end of the intelligence bell curve. – I remember one lady rambling at length about whether or not she ran a stop sign, and the judge tiring of her rambling, asked her point blank: ‘Did you or did you not, stop at the stop sign’ Her answer: ‘I stopped, but the car didn’t.’ – GUILTY.

Another memorable case: A wedding party, a car was pulled over for speeding, and seemed to believe that since they were following another vehicle which was also speeding, to the reception party, they should be excused. – GUILTY. It seemed as though they were angry that they were receiving the ticket and not the car they were following. Though I doubt they would have been happy if both parties received tickets.

IMO part of the key to your success in getting off, was your approach and demeanor in court. – being respectful, calm, showing courtesy, MANNERS goes a long way. Having a succinct and clear focused presentation also helped.

The losers tended to be the opposite.

Now I’ve got to get an android phone, with the GPS app! Not that it will help with my speeding issues…